Case Study Ricky Go

Ricky’s parents have two options. They could either keep him alive on the feeding tube in hopes of him waking up, or they could let him go by removing the feeding tube. These are both very hard decisions because if they keep him alive, it is not certain if he will ever wake up. If he does come out of the coma, he will not be the same person and they may have to have continuous care for Ricky for the rest of his life. With the second decision, they are choosing to let their son die, which is never an easy decision for a parent.
I believe if they were to use Kant’s deontology, they would choose to remove the feeding tube and let Ricky go. I believe this could be considered a decision that could be considered the universal law. People should …show more content…
By letting him go, the parents are saving themselves from hope and heartache. If he never wakes up, they will continuously have hope and will be let down when he doesn’t. They will also save themselves money when the insurance runs out. Also, if he ever does wake up, they wouldn’t have to take care of him for the rest of their lives and worry about where he will go once they die. With the other option of letting him stay on the feeding tubes, they would be treating him as a means to an end, because they would be doing so for their own benefit. They don’t want to lose their son and by keeping him on the feeding tube may only be beneficial for the parents. If he ever did wake up, he would not be the same person. He would also need around the clock care for the rest of his life. This could be something in which Ricky did not want but has to endure because his parents didn’t want to let him go. If he doesn’t wake up, Ricky would be continuously using medical services and resources which could be used on someone with a better chance. So, I believe that either option has an argument which would consider Ricky’s parents treating him as a means to an end. It’s hard to tell the right answer for how Ricky’s parents could treat him as an end, due to him not having the ability to voice his opinion. I would say either decision could also have the argument for how Ricky’s parents are treating him as …show more content…
He obviously is still a human and is irreplaceable. I would have to say Ricky does not have intrinsic worth because he is not capable of making his own decisions, setting his own goals, or guiding his out conduct by reason. Tying this is into him being considered a “person”, I’m not completely sure he would be considered one according to Kant’s description of a person. Ricky cannot act rationally or irrationally due to him being in a coma.
This would be considered punishment for Ricky. He brought this on himself by driving his motorcycle while intoxicated. If he had not been doing so, he would not be in the coma right now and this would not be an issue. I could also see the argument that the parents are punishing Ricky by making either decision of letting him live or letting him go. Also, either decision could feel like a punishment to the parents as well.
In conclusion, looking at Kant’s Deontology, I believe the parents removing the feeding tubes and letting Ricky go would coincide with Kant. I can see the argument for each decision, but in my opinion, this would be the best